Tinku @ Mahesh Chand and Another vs State of U.P.

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no.680 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(1), 352, 351(3), 125, 131 of B.N.S. (Old Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506, 336, 352 of I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act), Police Station Kosikalan, District Mathura, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.

¶11

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that co-accused Digamber @ Deegamber and Lekha @ Lekhraj have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 16.02.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 482 BNSS NO.581 of 2026. It is further submitted that the first information report has been lodged by a police officer and as per first information report, two group of persons are said to have indulged in fighting with each other. It is further submitted that no specific role has been assigned to any of the applicants. It was also submitted that applicants undertake to co-operate during trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶12

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. submits that he has not received instructions as yet.

¶13

NABAIL No. 1567 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶16

In the event of arrest of the applicants- Tinku @ Mahesh Chand and Dev @ Dev Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on interim anticipatory bail till 25.02.2026 on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions :-

¶17

(i) The applicants shall not tamper with evidence and that they would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned;

¶18

(ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶19

(iii) The applicants would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶20

(iv) The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned.

¶21

In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶22

List this case on 25.02.2026 as fresh.

¶23

Learned AGA is directed to obtain instructions in the matter by the next date.

¶24

February 17, 2026 RKM

¶25

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tinku @ Mahesh Chand and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tinku @ Mahesh Chand and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Najim @ Mohd Nazim vs State of U.P.

Satyam Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P.

Devendra Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Nazim vs State of U.P.

Jyoti Balmiki vs State of U.P.

Smt. Mobin Jaha and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another